To Regulators and Manufacturers - CFIT
Thread Starter
To Regulators and Manufacturers - CFIT
Philosophical musing time:
Given that the vast majority of our accidents are CFIT and so very few are engine failure related; AND
Given that CFIT almost never happens when pilots can see the ground...
then WHY are regulators and therefore in-turn, manufacturers, so obsessed with the UK offshore's fixation on PC1/PC2 and not on bringing virtual or actual (NVG and IR) terrain displays to the cockpit?
Here is a Garmin solution that demonstrates my point - and a picture does paint a thousand words...
Can you possibly hit this hill?
You would have to grit your teeth to hit that hill - even when you are significantly distracted by all the cockpit comms that distract so many other crews - you rarely fly into anything you can SEE - but the ground is littered with crews who flew into stuff they were TOLD about (heliTAWs, EGPWS, RADAlts, Charts, etc etc etc)
We are visual animals in far greater preference to being aural ones. Exploit that to keep us safe.
Why on earth do regulators not make sure this sort of tool gets certified instead of pursuing things like the PC1/PC2 requirement when we KNOW that this is not what is killing us?
Why are 3D terrain displays not mandated in all helicopters, including and especially transport category helicopters? Particularly those involved in night/IFR and EMS?
Why are the manufacturers still releasing cockpits that are not anywhere near the Garmin outcomes given it has been around for at least 8 years?
Garmin claim that they cannot afford to get the cockpit certified for Transport category Ops... my question is how can the regulators afford for them not to?
Some new models are appearing with 3D displays - but still none are "required" by regulation unlike the enormously powerful engines fitted. They are fitted for marketing....and none I have seen meet the clarity of the old Garmin display system. This system now even permits fused IR displays into the image so you get virtual and actual ground images. Wouldn't that significantly reduce CFIT.... I am thinking it would.
Recent EMS tenders in Australia tell a story about this. Appropriately, the procurers have ensured that they have "future proofed" their new buys by specifying the enormous expense of PC1 capability. They did their homework, and they know that regulations are going to require such performance - but there was little specification for enhanced SA displays because that is not even on the regulatory radar. Driven by the regulator, they have had to divert their precious spending into single engine performance.... they have had little other option.
Manufacturers and Regulators - Why cannot I not retrofit our AW139 "Airline Cockpit" with a display that stops me hitting the ground because I can see it?- despite at least 3 x CFIT just in that acft type (all were two pilot ops).
This question can be asked across so many types....
I can do it to the B0-105, but not the BK117 or B412 or S76....
I know we are all very busy trying to ensure we have enough single engine power and the correct HLS dimensions to worry about CFIT, but I would love Regulators and Manufacturers to solve our most present threat first....or at the very least ensure we are permitted to solve it ourselves.
I am not saying engine failure threats are zero and are not worthy of time/effort/investment to mitigate, I am postulating that they are not our most significant threat.....
Foot's Trolley
Select OEI or CFIT
for your consideration....
Given that the vast majority of our accidents are CFIT and so very few are engine failure related; AND
Given that CFIT almost never happens when pilots can see the ground...
then WHY are regulators and therefore in-turn, manufacturers, so obsessed with the UK offshore's fixation on PC1/PC2 and not on bringing virtual or actual (NVG and IR) terrain displays to the cockpit?
Here is a Garmin solution that demonstrates my point - and a picture does paint a thousand words...
Can you possibly hit this hill?
You would have to grit your teeth to hit that hill - even when you are significantly distracted by all the cockpit comms that distract so many other crews - you rarely fly into anything you can SEE - but the ground is littered with crews who flew into stuff they were TOLD about (heliTAWs, EGPWS, RADAlts, Charts, etc etc etc)
We are visual animals in far greater preference to being aural ones. Exploit that to keep us safe.
Why on earth do regulators not make sure this sort of tool gets certified instead of pursuing things like the PC1/PC2 requirement when we KNOW that this is not what is killing us?
Why are 3D terrain displays not mandated in all helicopters, including and especially transport category helicopters? Particularly those involved in night/IFR and EMS?
Why are the manufacturers still releasing cockpits that are not anywhere near the Garmin outcomes given it has been around for at least 8 years?
Garmin claim that they cannot afford to get the cockpit certified for Transport category Ops... my question is how can the regulators afford for them not to?
Some new models are appearing with 3D displays - but still none are "required" by regulation unlike the enormously powerful engines fitted. They are fitted for marketing....and none I have seen meet the clarity of the old Garmin display system. This system now even permits fused IR displays into the image so you get virtual and actual ground images. Wouldn't that significantly reduce CFIT.... I am thinking it would.
Recent EMS tenders in Australia tell a story about this. Appropriately, the procurers have ensured that they have "future proofed" their new buys by specifying the enormous expense of PC1 capability. They did their homework, and they know that regulations are going to require such performance - but there was little specification for enhanced SA displays because that is not even on the regulatory radar. Driven by the regulator, they have had to divert their precious spending into single engine performance.... they have had little other option.
Manufacturers and Regulators - Why cannot I not retrofit our AW139 "Airline Cockpit" with a display that stops me hitting the ground because I can see it?- despite at least 3 x CFIT just in that acft type (all were two pilot ops).
This question can be asked across so many types....
I can do it to the B0-105, but not the BK117 or B412 or S76....
I know we are all very busy trying to ensure we have enough single engine power and the correct HLS dimensions to worry about CFIT, but I would love Regulators and Manufacturers to solve our most present threat first....or at the very least ensure we are permitted to solve it ourselves.
I am not saying engine failure threats are zero and are not worthy of time/effort/investment to mitigate, I am postulating that they are not our most significant threat.....
Foot's Trolley
Select OEI or CFIT
for your consideration....
Last edited by helmet fire; 13th Mar 2015 at 02:33. Reason: links were not working, sorry!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whilst I agree that synthetic vision & enhanced vision systems have the potential to improve SA (lack of which is the fundamental cause of CFIT events), we shouldn't take them as a panacea for all SA evils. In fact if you just fit the kit, there is the old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and some pilots will be lulled into a false sense of security to the extent that they will fly in conditions when they would not otherwise have done. Think about the significant training required to operate in low visibility operations, and you will come up against the old problem of costs versus benefits. For the operator: how often do you operate in environments when you really need this kit, and how much will it cost to fit the kit, and give the crews initial and recurrent training in its safe use?
In my experience of training, no kit is going to help much IF you have crews operating with poor (or no) SOPs, if they have poor monitoring skills, assertiveness, mode awareness, and they suffer from automation complacency. These are much more urgent problems to solve for the vast majority of operators out there, before you start giving the crews more fancy kit to learn how to use properly.
In my experience of training, no kit is going to help much IF you have crews operating with poor (or no) SOPs, if they have poor monitoring skills, assertiveness, mode awareness, and they suffer from automation complacency. These are much more urgent problems to solve for the vast majority of operators out there, before you start giving the crews more fancy kit to learn how to use properly.
That kit would be great to have. Especially when flying a machine that doesnt even have a moving map display. But I agree that it could be used to press on a bit further when most would have turned around and gone home.(or elsewhere)
The safety of a flight can, and does mainly start at the planning stage before even climbing into the cockpit. The thing is that these great toys all cost money and unless its standard spec, not many operators these days would justify the extra cost of having it retrofitted, unfortunately.
The garmin 530 along with Wx radar gives a reasonable terrain avoidance system, but in my mind, once you're down to 'relying' on it during flight, you're already in a bad place.
The safety of a flight can, and does mainly start at the planning stage before even climbing into the cockpit. The thing is that these great toys all cost money and unless its standard spec, not many operators these days would justify the extra cost of having it retrofitted, unfortunately.
The garmin 530 along with Wx radar gives a reasonable terrain avoidance system, but in my mind, once you're down to 'relying' on it during flight, you're already in a bad place.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a cost, but I have added a Radio Altimeter, added Flymap L moving map GPS with Synthetic vision and in the process of joining the ADSB trial (the kit is in, awaiting CAA paperwork).
The cost of each of these is relatively low and "nothing" compared to the lives of any crew or passenger who will fly in my machine. The synthetic vision is not very exciting in S. England (too flat) but awesome when up in Scotland!
The cost of each of these is relatively low and "nothing" compared to the lives of any crew or passenger who will fly in my machine. The synthetic vision is not very exciting in S. England (too flat) but awesome when up in Scotland!
Thread Starter
Sounds logical, but this is not played out in the outcomes....Unfortunately, 3 out of the 3 CFIT in the 139 (ok, one was not "controlled") involved flight over flat terrain. And multiple aural warnings.... And PC1/PC2 capability
None of them involved being able to see the ground or a representation of it.
As for press on-itis because of the technology, well, yes it happens. The incidence of CFIT in glass cockpits is statistically over represented in GA aircraft.... But is that glass or is that 3d terrain awareness? And does it kill more because of the press on-itis or does it save more through the technology? I wish I had time to look through that sort of data....
But...
It is really just Foot's trolley again.
I faced this very argument time and time again about NVG - "don't introduce NVG because people will just fly into worse weather and press on when they should have turned around". Well, anyone want to take off their NVG now? Has anyone got a single professional organisation on record as removing NVG from the flight line because they thought it was leading their pilots into much more dangerous situations?
I am sure that the aviation industry had the very same natural discussion points when considering the first attitude indicators and autopilots. It is great that at least we have started it around this issue - and I hope that we can robustly consider the virtues as we have done with the introduction of attitude indicators, autopilots, and NVG. That is healthy.
However, ike the introduction of NVG,(which is an actual ground display in accordance with my point) my belief is that the technology will save many more than it takes. Of the ones that it takes - and I agree it will take some, would many of them not have stretched whatever rule/training/permission was in place?
We should not shy shy away from obvious technologies that will greatly enhance the safety of many because of the possible abuse of the few.
I think it may be as simple as this: how many (u)CFITs have we had where the crew can see the ground?
None of them involved being able to see the ground or a representation of it.
As for press on-itis because of the technology, well, yes it happens. The incidence of CFIT in glass cockpits is statistically over represented in GA aircraft.... But is that glass or is that 3d terrain awareness? And does it kill more because of the press on-itis or does it save more through the technology? I wish I had time to look through that sort of data....
But...
It is really just Foot's trolley again.
I faced this very argument time and time again about NVG - "don't introduce NVG because people will just fly into worse weather and press on when they should have turned around". Well, anyone want to take off their NVG now? Has anyone got a single professional organisation on record as removing NVG from the flight line because they thought it was leading their pilots into much more dangerous situations?
I am sure that the aviation industry had the very same natural discussion points when considering the first attitude indicators and autopilots. It is great that at least we have started it around this issue - and I hope that we can robustly consider the virtues as we have done with the introduction of attitude indicators, autopilots, and NVG. That is healthy.
However, ike the introduction of NVG,(which is an actual ground display in accordance with my point) my belief is that the technology will save many more than it takes. Of the ones that it takes - and I agree it will take some, would many of them not have stretched whatever rule/training/permission was in place?
We should not shy shy away from obvious technologies that will greatly enhance the safety of many because of the possible abuse of the few.
I think it may be as simple as this: how many (u)CFITs have we had where the crew can see the ground?
Of course, as far as the 139 is concerned, if you have EGPWS, it will clearly show you where you can and cannot go with respect to terrain and if you are flying on autopilot, the autopilot will avoid terrain showing on the EGPWS.
Part of the acceptance flight test where I worked was to fly towards a hill with ALT HOLD enabled, at an altitude of 2-300 ft lower than the top of the hill. When EGPWS starts to freak out, autopilot initiates a climb up and over the terrain.
Synthetic vision is available on the Primus Epic system used in the 139 (Honeywell have a 139 themselves and it has it installed), but, if they go ahead and certify it, it would be a HUGE expense to operators to have it installed on their machines. Welcome to Honeywell.
Hence the 169/189 have a different avionic system installed!
Part of the acceptance flight test where I worked was to fly towards a hill with ALT HOLD enabled, at an altitude of 2-300 ft lower than the top of the hill. When EGPWS starts to freak out, autopilot initiates a climb up and over the terrain.
Synthetic vision is available on the Primus Epic system used in the 139 (Honeywell have a 139 themselves and it has it installed), but, if they go ahead and certify it, it would be a HUGE expense to operators to have it installed on their machines. Welcome to Honeywell.
Hence the 169/189 have a different avionic system installed!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Helmet Fire,
Agreed - NVG is great kit to stop you bumping into things - but only if you are trained to use it properly and within its limitations.
The Aw139 CFIT/CFIW examples you talk about (I can only think of 2 of them of the top of my head) are not necessarily ones where the kit would have helped. Synthetic vision doesn't see trees, and enhanced vision can't see through fog. If you are flying over water, neither is particularly going to help stop you descending into it.
When you look at what gizmos we have on board compared to what you would have had 20 years ago, there is no comparison, yet we still don't remove the human error element, we just displace it a bit.
I still say the best investment for flight safety is quality training. If crews can avoid poor decision-making, you will rarely need the fancy kit.
Agreed - NVG is great kit to stop you bumping into things - but only if you are trained to use it properly and within its limitations.
The Aw139 CFIT/CFIW examples you talk about (I can only think of 2 of them of the top of my head) are not necessarily ones where the kit would have helped. Synthetic vision doesn't see trees, and enhanced vision can't see through fog. If you are flying over water, neither is particularly going to help stop you descending into it.
When you look at what gizmos we have on board compared to what you would have had 20 years ago, there is no comparison, yet we still don't remove the human error element, we just displace it a bit.
I still say the best investment for flight safety is quality training. If crews can avoid poor decision-making, you will rarely need the fancy kit.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF
Garmin must have nearly as much money as GOD, if not why don't they team up with one major Heli /A/c manufacturer, the rest would soon be hammering on their door to get involved, seems odd to me or are there some gremlins not able to be ironed out of a system that acts as your eyes.
However I agree with your statement that we are reliant on our vision more than anything else
Garmin must have nearly as much money as GOD, if not why don't they team up with one major Heli /A/c manufacturer, the rest would soon be hammering on their door to get involved, seems odd to me or are there some gremlins not able to be ironed out of a system that acts as your eyes.
However I agree with your statement that we are reliant on our vision more than anything else
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garmin must have nearly as much money as GOD, if not why don't they team up with one major Heli /A/c manufacturer, the rest would soon be hammering on their door to get involved, seems odd to me or are there some gremlins not able to be ironed out of a system that acts as your eyes.
I would suggest that the issue lie not with the OEMs but with the regulators acceptance of the systems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 74
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVS?
I've never really understood why long wavelength infrared is only touted as a landing aid for fixed wing?Enhanced Vision Systems for Aircraft Landing Systems | Sensors Unlimited.
Seems to me some the sport/rec/GA stuff would be perfect for medevac choppers.
Seems to me some the sport/rec/GA stuff would be perfect for medevac choppers.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,578
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
I have no idea what the abbreviation PC1/PC2 means (I was taught to initially qualify all abbreviations in written work with the full meaning).
However,
Agreed. It's not often the big hill that kills you in the cruise, provided you pre-flight planned correctly (I can think of one notable exception, but again that was a planning issue that should never have happened). It's the unseen tree branch or wire you hit while very close to the ground, when you think you had it all sewn up.
However,
The Aw139 CFIT/CFIW examples you talk about (I can only think of 2 of them of the top of my head) are not necessarily ones where the kit would have helped. Synthetic vision doesn't see trees, and enhanced vision can't see through fog. If you are flying over water, neither is particularly going to help stop you descending into it.
When you look at what gizmos we have on board compared to what you would have had 20 years ago, there is no comparison, yet we still don't remove the human error element, we just displace it a bit.
I still say the best investment for flight safety is quality training. If crews can avoid poor decision-making, you will rarely need the fancy kit.
When you look at what gizmos we have on board compared to what you would have had 20 years ago, there is no comparison, yet we still don't remove the human error element, we just displace it a bit.
I still say the best investment for flight safety is quality training. If crews can avoid poor decision-making, you will rarely need the fancy kit.
